Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields and by scoping the listing to 'active' searches only, which tells the agent these are live rather than historical entries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded in two tight sentences. However, the trailing 'DC: ...' or 'use Desktop Commander to ...' boilerplate is invocation-aliasing noise that does not help an agent decide to call this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope and return fields, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only explicit routing against siblings such as list_sessions or get_more_search_results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single optional deviceId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that it comes from list_devices and is required only when multiple devices are online. The prose description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (list active searches) and enumerates what is shown: search IDs, types, patterns, status, runtime. The analogy to list_sessions clarifies that these are searches rather than terminal processes, though the separation is made by comparison rather than by an explicit contrast statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Useful for managing multiple concurrent searches' implies the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. There is a passing reference to list_sessions, but it is framed as an analogy, not as a routing instruction for an agent choosing between tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.